Why Sweden has sharpened its light touch with strict notes: QuickTake

Passengers in an underground train in Stockholm.

Photographer: Jessica Go / AFP / Getty Images

Sweden’s practical response to Covid-19, which avoids exclusion while imposing restrictions, has sparked controversy from the outset. Although mortality rates rose in early 2020, Sweden kept shops, restaurants and most schools open. It did ban public gatherings of more than 50 people and some restaurants were ordered to close temporarily, but most measures had little legal weight. While many people initially complied with it, they were less willing when the second wave occurred in November, which forced stricter measures.

1. What arguments gave rise to this?

Lockdown skeptics see the strategy as a way to avoid negative side effects of restraining the transmission and as a model to contain the virus without violating personal freedom. Critics describe it as a deadly folly or utter folly disaster. Supporters of the government point to countries such as the United Kingdom, Italy and Spain that have closed but have higher death rates than Sweden, while critics claim that the best comparison is with neighboring countries such as Finland and Norway, which have similar population densities and health care coverage, but of which the mortality rates and infection levels were considerably lower than those of Sweden.

2. Why did Sweden not lock up?

Anders Tegnell, Sweden’s state epidemiologist and chief architect of the response, argued that all aspects of public health should be taken into account, including the detrimental effects of restricting people’s movements. Tegnell said that Sweden had followed proven methods for dealing with pandemics, while other countries’crazy ”when locked. Rather, Sweden relied primarily on people’s willingness to voluntarily adjust their lives to limit transmission. There are also legal restrictions on the measures that Sweden can take; while a is a temporary rule that allows the government to close shops, there is now Swedish legislation that does not allow stay-at-home vouchers or curfews.

3. Was the goal to achieve herd immunity?

The Public Health Agency initially assumed that immunity in the population would eventually stop the transmission of viruses, although it denied the media reported that the aim was to achieve herd immunity by infecting the population. Herd immunity, which blocks transmission, occurs when enough people in a community are immunized by infection or vaccination. Early calculations overestimated the number of unreported cases, which led experts to misjudge the level of protection in the population. Tegnell said in early May that at least 10% to 20% of the people in Stockholm were infected, while the agency found three weeks later that no more than 7% of the capital’s population antibodies against the virus. When the second wave hit, Tegnell and his colleagues made it clear that Sweden could not rely on herd immunity to stop the virus from spreading.

4. Is it more about politics or science?

In Sweden, authorities such as the Public Health Agency have a great deal of autonomy, and although the government has the final say, it tends to rely heavily on their expertise. When the pandemic struck Sweden for the first time in March, it was clear that the center – left government of Prime Minister Stefan Lofven would follow the agency’s approach, and it continued to do so, even though the initiatives taken since November taken, some signs of a fracture are shown. While Lofven has said in public that he is still making decisions based on consultations with Tegnell and his agency measures since November point to a more active government role.

5. Has the strategy been abandoned?

.Source